Page 3
Court of Appeal:
L.A. Clippers Fan Must Stay Clear of Team’s Ex-Dancer
Panel Says Protestations by Restrained Person That He Meant No Harm in Professing Love Are Inadequate
By a MetNews Staff Writer
|
|
|
Above is a publicity shot of Brooke Preston who, while a performer at Los Angeles Clippers games, was the subject of disturbing romantic advances, via social media, by a team fan. The Court of Appeal for this district has upheld a civil harassment restraining order against the would-be suitor. |
A bench officer did not err in awarding a three-year civil harassment restraining order to a woman who was, at the time, a dancer for the Los Angeles Clippers, the Court of Appeal for this district has determined, saying that amorous communications by the defendant, who also attended games and showed up at the two gyms the plaintiff frequented, were enough to justify a prohibition on him contacting her or getting near her.
Protests by defendant Andres Gutierrez that he meant no harm and was being treated like “a hardened criminal” did not win favor with the Div. Five panel that, on Monday, affirmed a Sept. 22, 2021 order by Los Angeles Superior Court Commissioner Doreen Boxer. It requires that Gutierrez stay at least 100 yards from plaintiff Brooke Preston’s home, workplace, and gym, and also names her sister as a protected person.
Preston became alarmed by frequent tweets by Gutierrez—in particular one in which he told of his attendance at Clipper games and that he had left flowers for her at one of the gyms—and by adulating postings on other social media platforms.
Text Message
One text message to her read:
|
|
|
|
The plaintiff said in her request for a restraining order:
“I am a professional public entertainer and perform in front of crowds—some large, some small—often at publicized events. I do not feel safe going to work with Mr. Gutierrez out there, because I am afraid that he might show up at one of these events to confront me, or find me as I am leaving one of these events I have already missed time at work as a result of him stalking me. I have not posted on my social media accounts, which is central to my livelihood….”
She was an “ambassador” for the two “F45” gyms in the San Fernando Valley, meaning that she promoted them on social media.
Kim’s Opinion
Justice Dorothy Kim said in an unpublished opinion:
“Plaintiff…testified that defendant’s conduct caused her to feel uncomfortable, alarmed, and paranoid to the point where she stopped living in her apartment, posting online, or attending rehearsals. That evidence supported a further inference that plaintiff suffered substantial emotional distress as a result of defendant’s conduct toward her.”
She said that although Gutierrez “testified that he did not intend to harm plaintiff and was sorry if he caused her pain,” he had admitted to Los Angeles Police Detective Peter Doomanis “that he knowingly engaged in all of the conduct described by plaintiff…other than denying that he contacted plaintiff’s sister” and “did not attempt to deny those other admissions during his hearing testimony.”
Kim declared:
“Thus, plaintiff’s testimony was largely uncontroverted and constituted clear and convincing evidence of each element necessary for the issuance of the challenged restraining order.”
Although the order expired last week—at midnight on Sept. 22—Kim did not discuss why the appeal was not dismissed as moot. Preston has not sought a renewal of the order.
Kim also did not explain why Preston, who did not seek anonymity, and litigated in her full name, was referred to in her opinion as “B.P.”.
The case is B.P. v. Gutierrez, B317499.
Gutierrez represented himself on appeal and Preston filed no brief.
Copyright 2024, Metropolitan News Company